Guest slimwitless Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 (edited) Secondly, it seems apparent from those posts that "the paper" has not been accepted for publication, so the people who are looking forward to Thursday afternoon headlines...don't hold your breath. I have always thought, and still do, that Ketchum's work will eventually be published. p. I can sort of see where you get that but then we have posts like this recent response to Mitch's question about the journal subscription. Sally here - Some journals will sell reprints to anyone; some will sell only to subscribers. I can't say which this journal does because we cannot ID it. Even so, you should be able to access it at your closest college/univesity library, if not a public library. You just may not ever be able to have your own copy of it. That's why I included a lot of options in the original post. You can't "ID" a journal unless there is one. I think the problem comes from reading too much into some of the more general comments about the submission process. My two cents. Edited February 24, 2012 by slimwitless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LAL Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 Why!?!?!? It's the only state without a BF sighting.... I like ham and pineapple on my pizza. Wanna make something of it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 (edited) exnihilo, on 23 February 2012 - 11:18 PM, said:These witnesses that everyone is sure are crazy lying kooks are real people. I'm glad to see that it's situation normal for the BFF - many "pluses" for this blatant strawman statement. Carry on. So does this consist of official acknowledgement by you on behalf of the Skeptic side of the validity of eyewitness testimonies about witnessing bigfoots? Prior to this Skeptics have insisted that all eyewitness testimony (no matter by how reliable or skilled a witness) was invalid due to hoax, misidentification or hallucination/imagination on the part of the eyewitnesses. Nice to see that you are finally admitting the truth: not all eyewitnesses are liars, crazy or fools. They are reporting BF because they saw a BF. Edited February 24, 2012 by Mulder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOLDMYBEER Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 Ketchum: " It is not a forensic paper but a comprehensive study of the genetics of these creatures." Question for those in the know, just what does her statement mean? I guess I am not sure what a 'forensic paper' is. In light of previously expressed concerns about sample provenance, does her distinction between the two products reduce the degree to which the samples need be vetted? Can a comprehensive study, perhaps admirable for the effort expended or its scientific value, actually not go so far as to "prove" anything? Sorry if I am being vague. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 I think she was responding directly to the question. Is this really more about your forensic research than the discovery of a new species? I'm not sure why he would ask that other than her Twitter profile (for example) reads: Scientist, Forensics and Hominid Research Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 I doubt seriously MM has seen results given he contacted Nature directly (and posted response) to find out if it was submitted there. He reported it was rejected for no testable hypothesis. Which, if true, is a BS response. A genetic study HAS no hypothesis to test. It is the report of the results found by genetic analysis. Which means, if the report of Nature's rejection (and it's reason) is true, then Henry Gee has been exposed as being untruthful with his claims of being open and eager to publish a BF paper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 Mulder, I don't think that is true. Genetic results with no prior agreed upon designation are open for interpretation. If she says it's bigfoot, that's not testable. If she says it's something new, then the genetic tests can be repeated to verify that fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 Nice to see that you are finally admitting the truth: not all eyewitnesses are liars, crazy or fools. They are reporting BF because they saw a BF. Finally? Mulder, you know darn well that I have been adamantly posting for years that I don't think all alleged eyewitnesses are "liars, crazy or fools" and that one potential explanation for their sightings is that they really did encounter real bigfoots. That's why exnihilo's statement that so many felt the need to praise was so far off the mark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 And we are off!!!.....right into another diatribe of skeptic versus believer in a thread where it has no relevance for hypothetical research results, no less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 Saskeptic, at one point I intended to call you to the carpet with an exhaustive recounting of your unobtrusive dissembling and genial mendacity. You're funny when you called on your nonsense - you start talking like the Wizard of Oz. When you can explain how your statement was not a strawman - presumably by finding quotes from me and other participating skeptics that people who report seeing bigfoots are all crazy liars - I'll gladly and publicly retract my statement that it was. If you'd prefer to dig an ever deeper hole, have at it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 Mulder, I don't think that is true. Genetic results with no prior agreed upon designation are open for interpretation. Either they match a known animal or they are from an UNKNOWN animal. One or the other. The results are what they are. No "interpretation" needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 Saskeptic, at one point I intended to call you to the carpet with an exhaustive recounting of your unobtrusive dissembling and genial mendacity. I later abandoned the effort on the theory that every man has one blindness or another, and who am I to dwell on the mote that clouds your vision, when I have my own blinding beams no doubt. Besides, you are relatively affable as far as skeptics go, that is as long as one is not offended by your callous and patronizing attitude towards witnesses - if one believes that fairly represents the pat theorem that all eyewitnesses are either mistaken, untruthful, or delusional. Yet this extreme cynicism is paradoxically combined with an unshakeable faith in the institutions of science - institutions which are manned by these same human beings you find so entirely fallible. Perhaps the marble halls of the academy work some wondrous alchemy on human nature. So feel free to lavish me with more pedantry - or accusations of pedantry. Be my guest. I'll content myself with the irony. Ex I think you just stumbled onto a new description for skeptics, at least the ones from the JREF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest exnihilo Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 Oh, I'm sure you'll shelter behind equivocal terms and pedantic distinctions. But your meaning was clear enough for all to see. I think a lot more are simply made up than folks here would like to acknowledge. This is another way a myth persists - out of politeness we tend not to question the veracity of alleged eyewitnesses. Other people think they've seen something, but they haven't. This class of sighting can be attributed to various forms of illusion and hallucination, which are by no means limited to people who suffer from mental illness or intoxication. Perfectly healthy, coherent, and sober people can experience a hallucination; although we probably have many accounts in the BFRO database from people who were none of those things at the time of their encounter. Some people do see, smell, or hear something that their brains interpret as bigfoot, even though it's not. Yes, a bear looks little like a bigfoot. But what if you see part of a bear (or a moose or a cow or a horse or an elk or a bison) from a funny angle under shadowy conditions or something? Suddenly that "obvious" bear becomes a lot less obvious. Imagine being in a dense forest, feeling something "eerie," smelling some roadkill on the breeze, and then getting startled by the sight of a massive, hairy shoulder that's at least as high as the top of your head. It doesn't matter that the "shoulder" was the hindquarter of a moose; your brain tells you that you just saw bigfoot. Other animals that contribute to alleged bigfoot sightings: owls (red eyeshine 10' off the ground), coyotes (howls), grouse (hoots), etc. Some people see something that looks a lot like a bigfoot because it really does: People walking around in unexpected places in the woods (e.g., hunters, moonshiners, marijuana growers, morel collectors), people in ghillie suits, people in bigfoot suits. We've seen photos of this sort of thing here, so it must be relatively common. So way down on the list of potential explanations for an anecdotal account would be the possibility that the person actually witnessed a real bigfoot. Other explanations are simply far more likely and need to be carefully considered and eliminated before ascribing a bigfoot cause to some unusual event. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 (edited) Either they match a known animal or they are from an UNKNOWN animal. One or the other. The results are what they are. No "interpretation" needed. It depends on what your stated hypothesis is of the unknown that determines whether you have testable/verifiable results. Edited February 25, 2012 by Jodie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 All I can add to this conversation, is I know several people from the marble halls of academia, and I can honestly say, they do not view whats going on here the same as some of the skeptics. The delays are no big mystery to them,its a very controversial topic, with a large number of people involved. This is not some run of the mill, baby step in progressive academic research. I am sure several times it has changed course, faced rethinking,revision,re-visiting, etc, all the while dealing with a couple hundred samples, from who knows how many people. Not just the science is involved here,so are the politics of attempting to keep the group on course, respecting the NDA's they have signed. My friends in the academia, are not surprised by delays,etc. They are as curious as anyone else about this,and feel no need to see any relevancy in Melba's comments, the science is the science, and will tell the tale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts